Going for another impeachment ? With an exquisite sense of timing, Bob Woodward revealed I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby wasn't his Plame-Wilson deep throat. The Bush Administration may have to blow another fuse and look for another scapegoat.
They easily replaced Scooter with another hawk : the only specie to avoid the laws of evolution does breed by entire flocks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC, USA (watch out : herd flu hazards). David Addington is already at work to please his masters Lobby Dick and King Dubya, revising the U.S. Army Field Manual in order to allow torture and escape such un-american and un-patriotic documents as the Geneva Convention, the UN Convention Against Torture or the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.
If he were to chose, W could pick Rummy instead of Dick or even Alberto. He would then please a great part of the Army and even find an alibi to change strategies in Iraq, "his" Rep majority pushing harder than ever for a clear withdrawal agenda before 2006 elections.
Showing posts with label Geneva. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geneva. Show all posts
20051023
Red blogule to the Department Of Justice - Denial Of Justice
A couple of months ago, French soldiers would try to cover up an incidental death in Ivory Coast : as soon as the Government understood it, they suspended the general in charge of the whole operation in the country.
Just days later, the US DOJ decided not to charge CIA felons for the institutionalized abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan*, considering enough people paid.
Only low rank soldiers have been charged but everybody knows who's responsible for the Abu Ghraib and Salt Pit infamies ; the man who even wrote down in memos his vision of an Amerika refusing the Geneva Convention and embracing torture ; the man George W. Bush put at the very head of the Department Of Justice.
You don't want to stir bitter feelings among CIA people these days. So Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales decided not to sue Senior Adviser Alberto R. Gonzales.
Shame, shame, shame ? Not really : this mob keeps talking about the pride of defending Freedom and Democracy against fascism.
Lynnie England definitely found her master in sick jokes.
* C.I.A. to Avoid Charges in Most Prisoner Deaths" (NYT 20051023)
Just days later, the US DOJ decided not to charge CIA felons for the institutionalized abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan*, considering enough people paid.
Only low rank soldiers have been charged but everybody knows who's responsible for the Abu Ghraib and Salt Pit infamies ; the man who even wrote down in memos his vision of an Amerika refusing the Geneva Convention and embracing torture ; the man George W. Bush put at the very head of the Department Of Justice.
You don't want to stir bitter feelings among CIA people these days. So Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales decided not to sue Senior Adviser Alberto R. Gonzales.
Shame, shame, shame ? Not really : this mob keeps talking about the pride of defending Freedom and Democracy against fascism.
Lynnie England definitely found her master in sick jokes.
* C.I.A. to Avoid Charges in Most Prisoner Deaths" (NYT 20051023)
20050822
Red blogule to "Intelligent Design" - Fundamentals and fundamentalism - Creationism and cretinism
"Pro-Life", "Intelligent Design"... these guys do have a knack for positive wording (don't even think about positive thinking). I gather they call torture in Abu Ghraib "Truth Quest" and the negation of all independant safeguards or watchdogs (the UN, the Geneva Convention, the International Criminal Tribunal...) something like "Active Freedom".
Bush's position on evolution resembles that of Revisionists on gas chambers : since there are alternative theories, students should be taught both angles*. This image may strike you as indecent and it is, but it clearly exposes the loopholes in the argumentation.
I'm not making any sick parallel between the existence of gas chambers and the existence of God, nor between proven facts and beliefs : I'm comparing people who knowingly manipulate opinions through biased rethorics.
I'm not even defending the theory of evolution, which is the best to date but won't explain everything. I just think the fundamentals of human society should be protected from religious fundamentalism.
Creationism** puts faith at the same level as science and that is the very negation of science. You can believe in ID if you want but you cannot call this science (and of course you have no right to believe in the non-existence of gas chambers).
Just the same, you cannot call "democracy" any approach of politics based on nor even mixed with religious beliefs. That is one of the reasons why, once again, Bush thinks and acts as an enemy to democracy, justice or science.
* or as the Washington Post relates it : "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about". You want to "teach" about Creation, Dubya ? If there were a place for it in school, it would be the History of Religions (with a "S" so that, this time, all angles could be presented). And you want "debate" now ? That's what I call "evolution" : you've been avoiding the debate on every other issue and the one you picked doesn't rely on any facts. Can you believe it ? No one can contest your belief !
** I realize that up to now my blogules on this issue have been spilled in French (see "National Geographic - Points de vue et images du monde" or "Creationism & Cretinism"). And I guess "creationism" should be rebranded into something more suitable : I suggest a generic term like "Religion-Based Beliefs" for all the likes of Creationism.
Bush's position on evolution resembles that of Revisionists on gas chambers : since there are alternative theories, students should be taught both angles*. This image may strike you as indecent and it is, but it clearly exposes the loopholes in the argumentation.
I'm not making any sick parallel between the existence of gas chambers and the existence of God, nor between proven facts and beliefs : I'm comparing people who knowingly manipulate opinions through biased rethorics.
I'm not even defending the theory of evolution, which is the best to date but won't explain everything. I just think the fundamentals of human society should be protected from religious fundamentalism.
Creationism** puts faith at the same level as science and that is the very negation of science. You can believe in ID if you want but you cannot call this science (and of course you have no right to believe in the non-existence of gas chambers).
Just the same, you cannot call "democracy" any approach of politics based on nor even mixed with religious beliefs. That is one of the reasons why, once again, Bush thinks and acts as an enemy to democracy, justice or science.
* or as the Washington Post relates it : "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about". You want to "teach" about Creation, Dubya ? If there were a place for it in school, it would be the History of Religions (with a "S" so that, this time, all angles could be presented). And you want "debate" now ? That's what I call "evolution" : you've been avoiding the debate on every other issue and the one you picked doesn't rely on any facts. Can you believe it ? No one can contest your belief !
** I realize that up to now my blogules on this issue have been spilled in French (see "National Geographic - Points de vue et images du monde" or "Creationism & Cretinism"). And I guess "creationism" should be rebranded into something more suitable : I suggest a generic term like "Religion-Based Beliefs" for all the likes of Creationism.
Red blogule to Karen Hughes
If you managed not to punch your TV set each time this most iritating Bush passionaria would comment on her Texas pal's crushing victories in last year's prez debates, get ready for it : Karen Hughes's now in charge of sweetening US' world image. Within the US State Department, she will manage "rapid response" teams to counter all foreign liars, the "liars" being people who lie about the Bush Administration's policies (Hughes even dared taking the so called "flushed Quran scandal" as the ultimate example), people who defend Geneva Conventions or the freedom of journalism, people who are "against us", people who voted Kerry, people who said the Iraqi invasion was poorly planned, people who demonstrate their un-Americanness because they lost their kid at the market the other day (the Baghdad market, not your average Iraqi-village-sized Wal-Mart)...
So the best response to your own failing policies is not to change them but to change the background music with which you advertize them. The best answer to fair foreign criticism is to strenghten US unfair propaganda. The best way to cure Amerika's sickness is to send a spin doctor. The best way to make up for your own lies is to put more make up on them and lie even further, be it at the cost of turning unpopular USA into masquerade-ugly unpopular USA.
According to the NYT, Hughes isn't even dealing with the 80% who are already questioning US policies but focusing on the last 20% who are not among the "insurgents" yet. But Karen, how many will sing along with you : "I see your face, I'm a believer" ?
So the best response to your own failing policies is not to change them but to change the background music with which you advertize them. The best answer to fair foreign criticism is to strenghten US unfair propaganda. The best way to cure Amerika's sickness is to send a spin doctor. The best way to make up for your own lies is to put more make up on them and lie even further, be it at the cost of turning unpopular USA into masquerade-ugly unpopular USA.
According to the NYT, Hughes isn't even dealing with the 80% who are already questioning US policies but focusing on the last 20% who are not among the "insurgents" yet. But Karen, how many will sing along with you : "I see your face, I'm a believer" ?
20050614
Red blogule to President Cheney and his "unlawful combatants"
Hypocrisy is not Lobby Dick's middle name. You can easily translate Dubya's doubletalk by catching the not so innocent pieces of ultraconservative wisdom his VP keeps releasing with the precision of a Swiss clock. Who was there to put some (Halliburton ?) oil on the fire at the peak of North Korean tension last week ? President Cheney. Who is there to defend Guantanamo under fire ? Richard The Second.
According to the NYT, the man a heartbeat away from becoming the world leader of democracy said Guantanamo detainees do not qualify for treatment under the Geneva Conventions because they are "unlawful combatants" who have not "operated in accordance with the laws of war" because they don't wear uniforms and have targeted civilians.
Here are the facts, Mr Cheney :
According to the NYT, the man a heartbeat away from becoming the world leader of democracy said Guantanamo detainees do not qualify for treatment under the Geneva Conventions because they are "unlawful combatants" who have not "operated in accordance with the laws of war" because they don't wear uniforms and have targeted civilians.
Here are the facts, Mr Cheney :
- Yes, atrocities are also committed by American people because you told them not to abid to any laws. Refusing the Geneva Conventions and any other kind of accountability goes beyond "unlawfulness" : you are training outlaws and torturers and this administration brought the shame on your country like no other one before.
- Yes, terrorists did and do commit atrocities - against the American people but more fundamentally (indeed !)against moderate muslims who are now defenseless because of the illegal war you sold - these are the perfect target civilians who get killed while you, as usual, stay safe far away from the actual war.
- Yes, this can also be said about you : you are "unlawful", you have not "operated in accordance with the laws of war", you don't wear uniforms and your so called war on terror mainly targeted civilians (the fact that US soldiers die because of you doesn't hurt the feelings of your buddies : after all, you traded their big corporation losses for a massive public deficit).
You say you want to bring Osama to justice but I wonder what kind of justice USA can bring under the helm of a known promoter of torture and at a time when even paedophiles are acquitted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Search my personal portal :
